May a good Catholic take the term Liberalism in good part and
may he regard it creditable to be a Liberal? What harm, it may be
urged, is there in the usage of these terms as long as there is
no actual acceptance of the Liberal creed. Why should not
Catholics use the terms with a (69) good sense injected into
them? Let us see if there be validity in this claim.

It is certain that the word Liberalism signifies in the
present age something not entirely in accord with true
Catholicity. It cannot be said that we describe the situation in
exaggerated terms. It must be admitted that in the current
acceptation of the word, Liberalism and Catholic Liberalism have
been explicitly condemned by Pius IX. Leaving aside for the
moment those who pretend to profess a certain Liberalism without
wishing it to be known as such, there is no doubt that the
Liberalist current in Europe and America is antiCatholic and
rationalistic. Pass the world in review; what is meant by the
Liberal party in Belgium, in France, in Germany, in Holland, in
Austria, in Italy, in the South American Republics? Are they not
anticlerical, antiCatholic? What is meant by their current
language when they speak of the Liberal criterion: a Liberal
atmosphere, Liberal thought, etc.? Look at the leaders of these
parties both in Europe and America; do not ninetynine per cent of
them understand by Liberalism the application of a pure and mild
rationalism, at least to social science? Do they not regard as
their sole and most potent enemy what they contemptuously term
Clericalism, Ultramontanism, and (70) describe the Church as
medieval, reactionary, the opponent of progress and the nurse of
superstition? When then the term is so intimately associated with
a Rationalism so radically opposed to the Church, how may
Catholics use it with any hope of separating it from its current
meaning?

In vain may some half dozen people imagine that they have
given a different signification to a thing currently understood
to bear the unmistakable stamp of antiCatholicity. Beyond all
dispute, common usage, the arbiter and judge of language,
persists in regarding Liberalism as the implacable foe of
Catholicity. In spite then of a thousand distinctions, exceptions
and subtleties you cannot fashion for yourself alone a Liberalism
which has nothing contrary to the Faith in the opinion of most
people, nor can you call yourself Liberal in any sense without
being classed with all the other Liberals of that great family of
Liberalism such as the world understands it. The journal that
seeks to be Catholic and at the same time has the name or
reputation of Liberal becomes in the general opinion an ally of
those who, under the Liberal banner, combat the Church in front
and rear. Vainly will the editor of such a journal explain
himself; his excuses and his explanations grow wearisome. To
profess (71) to be Catholic and yet subscribe himself Liberal is
not the way to convince people of the sincerity of his
profession. The editor of a journal purporting to be Catholic
must be Catholic not only in the profession he makes, but in
spirit and in truth. To assume to be Liberal and then to endeavor
to appear Catholic is to belie his faith; and although in his own
heart he may imagine that he is as Catholic as the Pope (as
several Liberals vaunt themselves), there is not the least doubt
that his influence on current ideas and the march of events is
thrown in favor of the enemy; and, in spite of himself, he
becomes a satellite forced to move in the general orbit described
by Liberalism.

And all this comes of a foolish desire to be estimated
Liberal. Insane illusion! The usage of the word Liberal makes the
Catholic, who accepts it as his own, one with all that finds
shelter in its ominous shadow. Rationalism is the toadstool that
flourishes in its dark shades, and with Rationalism does such a
journalist identify himself, thus placing himself in the ranks of
the enemies of Jesus Christ!

Moreover there is little doubt that the readers of such
journals are little prepared to distinguish the subtle
limitations drawn by editors of this character between Liberalism
(73) and Liberalism. Most readers know the word in its common
usage and class all things Liberal in a lump. When they see an
ostensibly Catholic journal practically making common cause with
the Liberal creed by sanctioning its name, they are easily led
into the dangerous belief that Liberalism has some affinity with
their faith, and, this once engrafted in their minds, they become
ready adepts of Rationalism. Let us illustrate. There is in our
day a sect which calls itself "The Old Catholics."
Suppose that we who are in the true sense of the word an old
Catholic, for our Catholicity dates from Calvary and the cenacle
of Jerusalem, which are proofs of its antiquity, suppose we
should establish a journal with the equivalent title: Review of
the Old Catholics Could it be said that this title is a lie? No;
for we are old Catholics in the best sense of the words. But
could it not be properly objected that this is a false sounding
title, in as much as it is in our day the cunning device of a
schismatical sect? Certainly it would give occasion to well
informed Catholics to believe that we were a schismatic and to
the schismatics, who style themselves oldCatholics, occasion to
welcome us as a new comrade in their rebellion against the
Church. Why thus scandalize the faithful? But we use the (73)
word in a good sense so be it; but would it not be much better to
altogether avoid the use of a term in so important a matter,
which, under existing circumstances, is readily interpreted in a
bad sense?

Now this is exactly the situation with those who consider the
term Liberal, reprobated by the Pope, inoffensive. Why should
they take particular pains to employ a term requiring confusing
explanations, and which cannot but excite suspicion and cause
scandal? Why rank themselves, for the sake of a term, with the
enemy, and carry his device if, at bottom, they are Catholic? But
it may be said that words are of little importance why quibble in
this way of the meaning of a term? We protest; words are of
paramount importance, especially in our own day, when
intellectual confusion so obscures fundamental truths in the
modern mind. Words represent ideas. That is their value and their
use. Modern error largely owes its success to its use of terms of
an ambiguous character, or, rather, by injecting a meaning into
its words which hitherto carried a different signification.
Agnosticism and Positivism have thus retained a Christian
phraseology without the Christian meaning. They speak of God and
sanctity and holiness and duty and freedom, but they have
eviscerated the Christian (74) meaning. Still these terms pass
current in the public mind with their former meaning, and so
halfdisguise the fatalism and paganism of the agnostic and
positivist schools. Socialism has adopted the terms liberty,
equality, and fraternity, as its watchwords, where in reality
they mean revolution, destruction, and despotism. Yet it deceives
the simple by thus disguising its real intent.

So has it always been. All heresies have begun in verbal
disputes and ended in sanguinary conflicts of ideas. St. Paul
exhorts Timothy to be on his guard not only against false science
(oppositiones falsi nominis scientie) but also against profane
novelties of words (profanas vocum novitates). What would the
great apostle of the nations say if, today, he saw Catholics
decorating themselves with the title of Liberal, when that term
stands in such violent and open antithesis to all that is
Catholic? It is not merely a question of words, but of what words
represent. It is a question of truth and salvation. No; you
cannot be a Liberal Catholic; incompatibles cannot be reconciled.
You cannot assume this reprobated name although you may be able
by subtle sophisms to discover some secret way of reconciling it
with your faith. Christian charity will not defend you, (75)
although you may repeatedly invoke it and would make it
synonymous with the toleration of error. The first condition of
charity is not to violate the truth, and charity cannot be the
snare to surprise faith into the support of error. While we may
admit the sincerity of those who are not Catholic, their error
must always be held up to reprobation. We may pity them in their
darkness, but we can never abet their error by ignoring it or
tolerating it. Beyond dispute no Catholic can be consistently
called Liberal.

Most, however, to be feared is not he who openly boasts his
Liberalism, but who eschews the name and, vehemently denying it,
is yet steeped to the lips in it and continually speaks and acts
under its inspiration. And if such a man be a Catholic by
profession all the more dangerous is he to the faith of others,
for he is the hidden enemy sowing tares amidst the wheat.